I've have found that there is a small glitch in the new definition of
feed urls where we have sort of confused/mixed the concepts of feed
content and feed format. Here's a refresher on what the new feed urls
are set to look like right now ...
* /<weblog>/feed/<format>
* /<weblog>/feed/rss?cat=<cat>&excerpts=true
* /<weblog>/feed/atom?cat=<cat>&excerpts=true
* /<weblog>/feed/comments
So the structure of the feed urls is currently defined to be
/<weblog>/feed/<format> where format is rss, atom, etc. The problem is
that conflicts with the comments feed because in that url "comments"
doesn't identify the feed format it identifies the feed contents. So it
seems to me that we need to revise the feed urls a little bit to
reconcile the fact that each feed content must support multiple feed
formats and thus each url should probably require both elements. This
also becomes more relevant if we let users define their own feeds with
data of their own choosing.
I see 2 options on how to revise this ...
1. The feed format is a query param and the feed content is in the path.
/<weblog>/feed/<content>?fmt=<format>
/<weblog>/feed?fmt=rss
/<weblog>/feed?fmt=atom
/<weblog>/feed/comments?fmt=rss
/<weblog>/feed/comments?fmt=atom
2. Both the format and content are part of the url path.
/<weblog>/feed/<content>/<format>
/<weblog>/feed/entries/rss
/<weblog>/feed/entries/atom
/<weblog>/feed/comments/rss
/<weblog>/feed/comments/atom
I don't really care either way. Using the query params keeps the urls a
little smaller but is uglier. Using the url path is longer but easier
to read.
Thoughts? Opinions?
-- Allen
